New Delhi, Jan 31: The Supreme Court has ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to retain video footage from polling stations while cases are being heard concerning the increase in the maximum number of voters allowed per polling station from 1,200 to 1,500.
A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar issued this directive after the ECI’s representative requested additional time to respond to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Indu Prakash Singh.
Singh is contesting the ECI’s decision made in August 2024 to raise voter limits in polling stations for each constituency.
The bench stated, “The ECI’s counsel has requested more time to submit an affidavit. We will allow three weeks for the affidavit to be filed. We also instruct the ECI to continue maintaining the CCTV recordings as they have been doing previously.”
On January 15, the Supreme Court demanded responses from the government and the ECI regarding Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh’s appeal against the recent changes made to the 1961 election regulations, which include restricting public access to CCTV footage.
Singh contends that the decision to increase the number of voters per polling booth was made arbitrarily and lacked sufficient data.
Previously, on October 24, the Supreme Court did not serve a notice to the ECI but permitted Singh to deliver a copy of the petition to the ECI’s standing counsel to clarify their position.
Singh argued that this decision could negatively affect voters in the upcoming assembly elections in Maharashtra, Bihar, and Delhi.
He pointed out that elections typically last for 11 hours, and casting a vote takes around 60 to 90 seconds, allowing only 490 to 660 individuals to vote at a single polling station equipped with one EVM. Considering an average voter turnout of 65.70%, a station meant for 1,000 registered voters would likely see about 650 people show up.
Singh’s petition also noted that some polling booths experience voter turnout rates between 85-90%.
“As a result, approximately 20% of voters may find themselves waiting in line past voting hours or may abandon their right to vote altogether due to excessive waiting times. Such scenarios are unacceptable in a progressive republic or democracy,” it argued. (Agencies)
